Read it this morning and, yeah, it's an interesting opinion piece - some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. With Pete, we've barely left ForegoneConclusionville at any point: while there's been a certain degree of meedja collusion in this (see this week's Heat's lachrymose interview with his mother, detailing Pete's Tragic Life and reprinting her Letter To Pete in its full, mawkish glory), I think it's mostly unforced - our genuine reaction to someone who's a) triumphed over neurological adversity, and b) near-pathologically inoffensive. Dermot O'Leary's column, in the same issue, gives a devastatingly uncritical account of Pete's J**rn*y, praising the Saint for his deft handling of emotional dynamics.
(If it were me writing the Guardian article, I'd have included Dermot in my 10 points. He's really pissed me off this year, for a number of reasons, and I can't work out whether it's because his partisan style has become more grating or whether I've just got used to it. Davina, too, has been a bit crapper than in previous years.)
I'd definitely agree that breaching the Housemates-back-in-the-House rule (big-time) has eroded the essence of Big Brother (its hermetic seclusion) in the same way as pissing repeatedly over a petri dish would contaminate that 'experiment'. If the franchise survives, I'd like to see it go back to basics a little, making 'twists' the exception rather than the rule.
I don't agree with the general sentiment that Godawful Irritating = Interest/Entertaining = Keep In Because It's Just Bland Without Them, but this is an argument we have every year... |
